Shouting at the ocean with pebbles in my mouth since 2008. The subjects of this blog include forensics, the war-on-terror detainees, the Duke lacrosse case, the Knox/Sollecito case, and the academic world as it intersects the political. It will sometimes examine issues of particular interest to Wilmington, NC and the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

A report in Vincent Clark's appearance at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The publicity agent for Crystal Gail Mangum, Vincent “Ed” Clark, spoke and answered questions on Wednesday 22 April 2009 at the Sonja Haynes Stone Center on the campus of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. The program was called "Cracks in the Justice System: Victims of Money, Media and Misconduct, " and it was sponsored by chapters of certain campus sororities or fraternities (http://www.unc.edu/student/orgs/onetnx/events.html). The presentation included readings from the writings of several wrongly convicted minority individuals, including Ronald Cotton, Lesly Jean, and Hector Gonzalez. In response to a question after the presentation was over, Mr. Clark implied that he was working on a case in which two retarded boys are being held on the basis of signed confessions, in spite of both individuals being illiterate.

Mr. Clark, who represents Crystal Gail Mangum, the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case, is an affable and voluble individual. Ms. Mangum has published her memoir, “Last Dance for Grace” with Mr. Clark’s assistance, and the two have attempted to tell her life story to the media for some time. He discussed having conversations with Inside Edition and HBO, among others. He says that after initial enthusiasm among creators, their bosses or their boss’s bosses quash the project. The producers say something close to “Vince, they won’t let me do it.” Mr. Clark puts at least some of the blame for this on the families of the Duke three, who have dinner with Sumner Redstone. Mr. Clark says that Ms. Mangum wants to talk about herself and the mistakes she has made. She disappoints some in the media, who would like to have her confront Mr. Cheshire or the Duke three on camera. He attributed to 60 Minutes senior producer Michael Radutzky a statement to the effect that he would put a bullet into prosecutor Michael Nifong’s head so that no one would believe Ms. Mangum.

Mr. Clark spoke about the many hours he spent interviewing Ms. Mangum and also the time he spent going to church and listening to her speak with her pastor. “My job was to listen to Crystal.” Mr. Clark said that there are blogs that have criticized Ms. Mangum every day for three years: “That is why I have an affinity for her. What if she is lying, shouldn’t she be allowed to finish college?” Mr. Clark asked rhetorically whether the members of the audience had ever done anything with which they were uncomfortable. A member of the audience asked if she were lying, should she be prosecuted. Mr. Clark said that if one accepts the Attorney General’s conclusion that the three are innocent, they have to accept his decision not to prosecute. Earlier he noted that the AG said that she believes her story.

Mr. Clark implied that attorney Joseph Cheshire didn’t want most prosecutors who were guilty of misconduct put in prison, only Mr. Nifong, who made the mistake of going up against the wrong people. He also quoted professor Angela J. Davis, professor of law at American University, as telling Mr. Cheshire “Joe, you know this is not right, what you did to her.” Professor Davis has written extensively on prosecutorial power.

He also took issue with the idea that the lacrosse case was the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct ever. He said that Mr. Nifong never should have been talking in public. He also said that the Durham police department has “some problems with other investigations.” About the Duke three, Mr. Clark contrasted their experience with those of Mr. Gonzalez and the other individuals discussed in the program, saying, “They were shown on television.” When later asked about the Newsweek cover featuring mug shots of two of the accused players, Mr. Clark said that he and Crystal both thought that it “never should have been done.” Much earlier, Mr. Clark had characterized a discussion on Nancy Grace’s show as a scream fest.

With respect to Crystal and her family, he said that some in the media doubted that Crystal was a student at North Carolina Central University, but that when they saw professors greet her, the cameras shut off. Mr. Clark asked what was wrong with photos of Crystal sitting in class or with her diploma, which he said does not occur. Mr. Clark said that Ms. Mangum’s father tried to hold the family together, but that her mother had psychological problems. The media latched on to Ms. Mangum’s cousin Jakki, to whom Crystal had not spoken in six years, because of the desire within the media to portray Crystal’s family in a freakish light. Jakki, who is a transsexual, was treated as a family spokesperson.

After the presentation an observer characterized Ms. Mangum’s comments earlier that evening by quoting Ms. Mangum, “I want to tell my story.” However the observer indicated that Ms. Mangum spoke only about her experiences with the media, not about the case itself. When this remark was overheard by a presumed event organizer, this individual said that a discussion of the case itself was not the point of the evening.

156 comments:

After the presentation an observer characterized Ms. Mangum’s comments earlier that evening by quoting Ms. Mangum, “I want to tell my story.” However the observer indicated that Ms. Mangum spoke only about her experiences with the media, not about the case itself. When this remark was overheard by a presumed event organizer, this individual said that a discussion of the case itself was not the point of the evening.********************

"He [Clark]attributed to 60 Minutes senior producer Michael Radutzky a statement to the effect that he would put a bullet into prosecutor Michael Nifong’s head so that no one would believe Ms. Mangum."

Chris Halkides made his usual excellent, well-written and thorough report.

In my view, what is important to note is that Ed Clark has never made an ad rem argument at any time in his effort to sell Mangum's "story."

Mangum's "story" is a lie, period.

Chris' quote of Clark's statement, "What if she is lying, shouldn’t she be allowed to finish college?” reveals yet another senseless point made by Clark that is entirely irrelevant to the issue.

No one should care whether she finishes college or not. That is up to the college she attends and whether she meets the requirements to graduate. Mangum was never charged with any crime in this case and no one on the DIW Blog to my knowledge, ever advanced an argument that she shouldn't be allowed to finish college.

The supposed topic of UNCCH event was "Cracks in the Justice System," and, according to Chris, the cases discussed included "several wrongly convicted minority individuals, including Ronald Cotton, Lesly Jean, and Hector Gonzalez."

Those individuals were defendants in criminal trials ... Mangum was a false accuser in a criminal prosecution. Why then weren't the accusers in the cases of the individual defendants named asked to speak at this event?

Mangum was not a victim of injustice, her false accusations (together with the actions of other miscreants) were the cause of an injustice.

And, if Clark wants to make a point about "prosecutorial misconduct," the many versions of the "story" Mangum told actually abetted prosecutor Nifong's misconduct.

The fundamental conclusion about Ed Clark is that he represents a deeply troubled, mentally ill woman who is a pathological liar and has told myriad lies throughout this episode.

That is Mangum's "story" and nothing else.

Whether she gets to graduate; her family background; whether her cousin is a transsexual; that she was sympathetic to the press coverage of the lacrosse players; whether photos were shown of her in class; what Joe Cheshire might have said about other prosecutors in NC --- none of that is germane. Those are all obfuscations promoted by Ed Clark.

It has been proven that there does not exist, and there never was, a shred of evidence to support any accusation or "story" Mangum made up in this case.

There does exist a mountain of evidence that proves Mangum lied not once, but multiple times. That is the alpha and omega of Mangum, "nothing beside remains."

Why make such an astounding calculated lie by quoting"It has been proven that there does not exist, and there never was, a shred of evidence to support any accusation or "story" Mangum made up in this case."What about $400 being stolen from Ms Mangum? Is that not evidence?

IIRC, Mangum's $400 was found sitting in a pile untouched from the night of the party, along with Mangum's cosmetics bag that she also left behind that night.

I suppose that in 6:19's fevered mind, if Mangum were to be found staggering down the road, the distinct scent of alcohol on her breath, and her footsteps could be traced back a hundred yards down the road to where a car had been driven into a tree -- according to 6:19, the existence of the car would be "evidence" for any BS claim Mangum chose to make that mysterious malefactors had stolen her car that she was not driving in an intoxicated state, no way.

But then again, I suppose that in 6:19's distorted mindset, the very fact that a house exists at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard counts as convincing evidence that an assault happened in the house there.

You want to disregard the theft so people won't see how deplorable their behavior really was. What you're doing is deceptive & dishonest. Theft is a crime and should have earned the thief some time in the slammer.

Furthermore, it is beyond the pale to steal money from a poor person and take food right out of the mouth of poor little innocent children. How wretched.

Anonymous 8:29pm

Ms Mangum's didn't put the $400 in a pile on the table. How did it get from her wallet? Who went into her wallet and lifted the money?

If one will steal money from the poor, what else won't they take/steal?

Let us say that a stripper -- her race does not matter -- went to the police and reported that her money had been 'stolen' from her by male attendees -- their race does not matter -- of a party she had been hired to dance at.

And let us say that when the police investigate the claim, they discover that in fact what happened is that the stripper showed up at the party she had been hired to dance at late, and already intoxicated. She took payment for dancing up front, but proved to be too badly intoxicated to dance or even to remain upright -- so the money she is referring to is in fact money she obtained under false pretenses, money that was given her in exchange for entertainment services that she did not provide.

And as the police further investigate, they find that while some of the party guests originally thought to take back the money the stripper had taken away from them under false pretenses, this plan was not followed through. They find that the only reason that the stripper did not leave with her ill-gotten gains was that she had intoxicated herself far too badly to remember to get it before she left. Indeed, video of her leaving the party shows her acting bizarrely, telling party attendees "I'm a cop" and rummaging through personal possessions that she has stolen from the host of the party.

So here is the question: what sort of idiot says "It was their money to begin with; she was supposed to get that money in exchange for dancing but she didn't dance; she could have taken her money with her when she left the house but instead she chose to take a bag belonging to the host of the party instead -- throw them in jail for theft!"? No one except a bigot.

If Mangum was concerned for the food going in "the mouth of poor little innocent children" then maybe she should've thought about not showing up for work intoxicated by combining booze and muscle relaxant. It doesn't matter if you're a stripper or a CEO, a doctor or an auto mechanic, a district attorney or a waiter -- if you're going to work and expecting someone else to pay you for the work you do, you don't show up crocked.

As always, Stuart makes a well-reasoned case. By coincidence, I was reading an essay about torture by Robert Creamer and he quoted a moving passage from Ariel Dorfman. Dorfman witnessed Pinochet's Chile firsthand. At the end of the article I noticed that Ariel Dorfman was from Duke. I checked, and he was a signer of the listening statement. Apparently there is no correlation between where one stands on torture and where one stands on the hoax.

Your experiment is Epic Fail. I am sure you want to believe that happened but not. Even Roy Cooper stated about a theft occured.

Roy Cooper's Summary of Conclusions:

The Missing Money..

"'Two of the attendees, while using the bathroom, noticed that one of the dancer's had left her cosmetics bag behind in the bathroom. Each separately took money out of the bag and were told by Flannery and Evans to return the money to the bag'".

So, Is Roy Cooper a liar? If Roy Cooper is lying about the missing money then what else is he lying about?

Ms Mangum & Kim Pittman arrived at the party sober, according to the statement of a eye witness, Jason Bissey.

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/430963.html

"They were both totally lucid. [The accuser] was not impaired in any way, I remember clearly," Bissey said Thursday. "It was a kind of a long way to walk so it would have been pretty clear if she was messed up."

Anon 5:31

Your experiment is Epic Fail! Ms Mangum & Kim Pittman were offered drinks upon their arrival to the party. Kim Pittman didn't drink any of the drink offered to her but Ms Mangum did. And she also drank part of Kim Pittman's drink. So it was after those drinks.. she began to stumble during the dance.

Leave off the "Epic Fail". It's so embarrassing when people in their middle ages try to talk in the slang they think their children use.

Was it improper for those two party attendees to move the $400 from Mangum's purse to the counter? Yes, it was improper. Was it improper for Mangum to be trying to take that money in the first place, since it was money she had taken to perform services that she had impaired herself too badly to perform? Yes, it was improper. A court determining to whom the money actually belonged might well have decided that Mangum had no right to the money, since she had not fulfilled her part of the exchange.

Was it theft for those players to move the money from the purse to the counter? It would take a really stretched definition of the word "theft" and by the time you stretch the definition that far it become clear that Mangum herself committed theft that night, not only taking a possession belonging to one of the hosts but absconding from the house with it. Of course, both of those pale in comparison to real theft, like the one that Mangum committed in June 2002, slipping the keys of a taxicab from out of the pocket of the driver she was giving a lap dance to and then stealing the cab, with which she tried to run a policeman down. To use your own words, "You want to disregard the theft so people won't see how deplorable [her] behavior really was. ... Theft is a crime and should have earned the thief some time in the slammer."

As for the idea that Mangum was completely sober before she got to the party, it doesn't wash. Sure, Jason Bissey said that he didn't see any signs of Mangum being intoxicated. But Bissey also said he saw Mangum and Roberts arrive in the same car. If Jason Bissey is wrong about Mangum and Roberts arriving together what else is he wrong about? At best, even if we were to (incorrectly) take Bissey's testimony as absolutely correct not just about what he saw but everything there was for him to see it would only mean that Mangum's self-intoxication was not showing outside the house.

We know from Mangum's own testimony that she was taking the muscle relaxant Flexeril. Flexeril should not be taken with alcohol as it can drastically magnify the effects of both (something Mangum would certainly have known if the Flexeril was prescribed to her); despite this, Mangum drank two large beers before coming to the party (from her own testimony) and then, as you yourself point out, she drank a drink offered to her and half of Roberts' drink. So she's not supposed to be drinking any alcohol but instead she downs three and a half alcoholic drinks and you think she didn't intoxicate herself??

"Leave off the "Epic Fail". It's so embarrassing when people in their middle ages try to talk in the slang they think their children use".

Just goes to show you admire ignorance. Speak for yourself middle aged person. So sad.

"Was it improper for those two party attendees to move the $400 from Mangum's purse to the counter? Yes, it was improper".

Improper? My ass. It was THEFT.That.Is.All.

"Mangum committed in June 2002, slipping the keys of a taxicab from out of the pocket of the driver she was giving a lap dance to and then stealing the cab, with which she tried to run a policeman down".

Ms Mangum paid her debt to society. But yet others get off from paying their due. Social injustice at its best.

"As for the idea that Mangum was completely sober before she got to the party, it doesn't wash. Sure, Jason Bissey said that he didn't see any signs of Mangum being intoxicated. But Bissey also said he saw Mangum and Roberts arrive in the same car. If Jason Bissey is wrong about Mangum and Roberts arriving together what else is he wrong about? At best, even if we were to (incorrectly) take Bissey's testimony as absolutely correct not just about what he saw but everything there was for him to see it would only mean that Mangum's self-intoxication was not showing outside the house".

Bullsh!t. You're a lying liar. You refuse to accept the truth even when it looks you in the eye. I imagine you're also calling Roy Cooper's Summary of Conclusions a lie as well? He did state someone when into Ms Mangum's purse and lifted the money. But white privilege gave the thief a pass.

", Mangum drank two large beers before coming to the party (from her own testimony) and then, as you yourself point out, she drank a drink offered to her and half of Roberts' drink".

A person does not get drunk off 2 large beers. GMAFB. Who the hell are you kidding? As for the medication~ The defense had access to Ms Mangum's medical records and were claiming she had mixed the medication with alcohol. Damn whorish lawyers. What won't they do for the almighty dollar?

The party-goers were a bunch of drunken thugs who had been drinking since 2:00pm & decided to hire women to dance naked for their sexual satisfaction.

One part-goer took twistedness to a new level by suggesting the dancers sodomize themselves with a freaking broomstick.

The mindset of the party-goers is very telling. Not only was racial slurs hurled at the dancers but the vile email that followed afterwards was horrendous.

You're sore because Ms Mangum refuses to let you stop her from crying out about the social injustice she has suffered. She has every right to speak out against it. I wish her well.

Buckle yourselves in because more Universities & Colleges will be asking her to speak.

Then it was also theft for Mangum to take David Evans' personal possessions away with her when she left the house, and probably theft as well for her to accept $400 for dancing that she had intoxicated herself too severely to perform.

"Ms Mangum paid her debt to society. But yet others get off from paying their due. Social injustice at its best."

So when is she going to pay her debt to society for her vicious false accusations? Unless you really are a complete racist bigot (I mean, even more so than is obvious) you must not believe the version of Mangum's story that she told where Kim Roberts was an accomplice in the alleged assault -- if you did, then you'd be screaming about how unfair it is that Roberts was never even charged with her role in the alleged assault. But you don't. So either you figure that all black women should get free passes when they do something wrong, or you simply don't believe that Mangum was telling the truth when she made that false accusation against Roberts. Yet what if Nifong and the police had picked that version of Mangum's story, out of the many she told, to prop up with their perjury? Then Kim Roberts would be facing criminal charges based on Mangum's false accusations. Is Mangum paying her debt to society for that? No! Mangum, who put a minority woman at risk for a false prosecution, is getting invited to speak about how minorities get unfair treatment from the judicial system!

"A person does not get drunk off 2 large beers. GMAFB. Who the hell are you kidding? As for the medication~ The defense had access to Ms Mangum's medical records and were claiming she had mixed the medication with alcohol."

You want to tell that to a doctor, that a woman drinking 2 large beers and taking Flexeril couldn't possibly get drunk from that combination? What Mangum actually had was 2 large beers and according to your own statement the drink poured for her, plus most of the drink poured for Roberts. Three and a half alcoholic drinks for a woman who according to her own testimony was taking Flexeril, a medication with which you should not be taking any alcohol. Mangum intoxicated herself that night.

"You're sore because Ms Mangum refuses to let you stop her from crying out about the social injustice she has suffered. She has every right to speak out against it."

And those of us who actually care about evidence and the truth have every right to point out that she is a proven liar who has actually benefitted from society's double standards -- after all, a white woman who made the false accusations that Mangum did would probably have been subjected to judicial punishment for her multiple falsehoods, and a man who made false allegations of criminal activity almost certainly would have been severely punished.

"So when is she going to pay her debt to society for her vicious false accusations"

Ms Mangum didn't accuse anyone falsely. Roy Cooper didn't bring charges because he could not. He has No proof. Cooper doesn't know what happen no more than you or me.

The defense does not have proof Ms Mangum mixed alcohol & medication. It was their strategy to discredit her. Ms Mangum stated at the speaking engagement there was no mixture of alcohol & medication.

Ms Mangum has paid the debt owed to society. She has accomplished much since her horrible ordeal by finishing college with a degree in criminal justice,& writing a book. It also seems Ms Mangum may become an advocate for social injustice.

But I do wonder....

If Ms Mangum was so intoxicated upon her arrival to the party---Why did Dave Evans offer drinks to her?

I spoke with a physician who is familiar with flexeril today. He said that it effectively doubles the number of drinks you take. If Crystal had the equivalent of three alcoholic drinks, then that would be similar in potency to six drinks. She acknowledged taking flexeril to Tara Levicy, among others. Her medical records have never been released.

Crystal Mangum claims in her autobiography that the owner of the car gave her the keys in the 2002 incident. She never explains why the owner did not simply drive her there himself. If she stole the keys but won't admit to doing so, then she is unrepentant.

To the Anon 8:22,I will leave it to you to tell me about the unreported evidence. However, as long as the laws of chemistry and physics are the same in Durham as they are everywhere else, Reade, Collin, and Dave cannot have raped Crystal Mangum on the date in question. If you believe that there was a rape, I suggest you seek out the identities of the individuals whose DNA was found on her person.

"I spoke with a physician who is familiar with flexeril today. He said that it effectively doubles the number of drinks you take. If Crystal had the equivalent of three alcoholic drinks, then that would be similar in potency to six drinks. She acknowledged taking flexeril to Tara Levicy, among others."

Ms Mangum "may" have admitted to Levicy about taking the precription flexeril. Doctors usually ask patients which medications they're taking whenever one arrives at the ER. But did Ms Mangum admit to taking flexeril that particular night? She didn't.

I take precription pain medication but I don't take it everyday. I take only as needed.

Ms Mangum started stumbling during the dance. We know she didn't mix the medication with alcohol. SMH, No way 2 large beers would cause one to stumble so quickly.

"Roy Cooper didn't bring charges because he could not. He has No proof."

Cooper had all the proof he needed that the accusations were false. Even without comparing Mangum's stories to the evidence, comparing Mangum's stories to each other made it crystal clear (no pun intended) that she had told multiple false stories of assault.

The only information Cooper needed that he didn't have was whether Mangum was knowingly inventing false stories or simply deluding herself into believing things that never happened because of mental illness.

"Cooper doesn't know what happen no more than you or me."

Oh, most certainly more than you.

"The defense does not have proof Ms Mangum mixed alcohol & medication."

That is exactly what Mangum told Tara Levicy at Durham Access Center, that she had been taking Flexeril and had had two large beers before leaving for the party. Have you not figured out yet that you can't just blithely ignore Mangum's own statements when they contradict each other and contradict what you want to believe?

"Ms Mangum stated at the speaking engagement there was no mixture of alcohol & medication."

Which simply proves what those of us paying attention knew long ago: Mangum can't keep her stories straight.

"Ms Mangum has paid the debt owed to society."

Except of course for the debt she owes for all the destruction caused by her false accusations. I wonder if she's ever even apologized to Kim Roberts for making Roberts an accomplice in one of her false accounts of alleged assault.

"She has accomplished much since her horrible ordeal"

The "horrible ordeal" that never happened.

"by finishing college with a degree in criminal justice,"

Too bad she didn't get a degree in ethics.

"& writing a book."

There's no particular merit to repeating a lie at book-length. Not even if you merely have it ghost-written, which is far more likely the case here.

"It also seems Ms Mangum may become an advocate for social injustice."

An advocate for social INjustice?? Finally, you say something that makes sense!

"If Ms Mangum was so intoxicated upon her arrival to the party---Why did Dave Evans offer drinks to her?"

If she appeared unintoxicated when she arrived at the party, something that you keep trying to assure us is the case, then why wouldn't he as a host offer her a drink? You can't have it both ways; you can't say "Jason Bissey didn't see any signs of intoxication!" and at the same time say "David Evans must have seen signs of intoxication!"

"Ms Mangum "may" have admitted to Levicy about taking the precription flexeril."

Correction: Mangum did admit to Levicy about taking Flexeril.

"But did Ms Mangum admit to taking flexeril that particular night? She didn't."

And your authority for declaring that? If it's "Mangum stated at the speaking engagement there was no mixture of alcohol & medication" then what you're offering is circular logic: Mangum is a known liar who has given multiple conflicting accounts of that night, and you cannot erase the problem of her non-existent credibility by simply noting that she now claims she did not make an admission about drinking alcohol on top of her pain medication.

"I take precription pain medication but I don't take it everyday. I take only as needed."

This does not make you an expert on all prescription pain medications and their effects. Even if you were such an expert, you have no basis for asserting that Mangum only took her pain medication as needed. Since one of the doctors at UNC Hospital, where Mangum went asking for pain medication the evening after the party, considered her "at very high risk of narcotic abuse" it would obviously be foolish to assert as fact, with no proof, that Mangum took her pain medication only as needed.

"Ms Mangum started stumbling during the dance."

We know that she was definitely stumbling during the dance. We definitely do not know that she started stumbling during the dance.

"We know she didn't mix the medication with alcohol."

We know no such thing. We know she claims that now but we also know that she claims she was dancing in the bedroom of the house, rather than the living room which is where all the photos of the evening show her.

"SMH, No way 2 large beers would cause one to stumble so quickly."

Even if we were to give full credence (for no good reason) to Mangum's claim that she did not mix her medication with alcohol that night, she did not have 2 large beers. She had two large beers plus the drink that was given to her plus part of the drink that was given to Roberts. Three and a half drinks is enough to make one stumble, even before factoring the Flexeril back in.

No he didn't. He wasn't at the party. No one knows the truth except the people that were involved.Why won't Roy Cooper release the full disclosure of the duke rape file? Why not release it so the public will know?

"The only information Cooper needed that he didn't have was whether Mangum was knowingly inventing false stories or simply deluding herself into believing things that never happened because of mental illness".

Cooper had nothing otherwise he would have charged Ms Mangum with a crime. This is why he didn't. But what Cooper did know was a theft occured and he passed on charging the thieves with a crime. When you're white it's alright.

Furthermore, Ms Mangum is still speaking publicly that an assault happened. I don't think she is afraid of Roy Cooper. UNC didn't shut down her speaking engagement either. I think she'll have more offers to speak at many different Universities and Colleges. So buckle up because it ain't over until its over.I listen to Roy Cooper's press conference. He stood there and made fun of Ms Mangum's statements. I saw the smirk on his face and at the same time claiming he felt sorry for her and would not be bringing charges against her. If she did have mental issues, it is disgusting for an Attorney General to publicly make fun of people with mental issues.The declaration of innocence was laughable. When have we ever witnessed an Attorney General declaring someone innocent? There is a system in place in this country. A person is either guilty or not guilty in a court of law.

Ms Mangum has paid her debt to society. She doesn't owe anyone anything. What happened before the duke rape case is over. Debt paid in full.

Ms Mangum has suffered horribly in many ways whether you want to face the facts or not. She has spoken publicly twice and still claims an assault happened. I sympathize with her deeply because I know the justice system has never been fair to minorities. I will stand with her and support her until she says otherwise.

"If Ms Mangum was so intoxicated upon her arrival to the party---Why did Dave Evans offer drinks to her?"

I asked the question because supporters of the accused state Ms Mangum was drunk upon arrival. But we know Jason Bissey witnessed a sober woman walking up to the house.

So I throw the question right back in your face; if Ms Mangum was drunk upon arrival to the party, why did Dave Evans offer an intoxicated woman a drink?

See, YOU can't have it both ways because I'm going to challenge your crap of lies that you try to twist & turn.

To the 8:22 and others,If you refer to evidence, particularly if it not general knowledge, I suggest that you summarize the evidence in your post, give a link or other citation where it can be found, and then give your interpretation. It is not credible to talk about secret evidence and then not disclose what it is.

Supporters of Ms. Mangum often say to people who do not believe her, "You weren't there, only those who were there know what happened." We know that Reade Seligmann was at an ATM machine a mile away at the only time a rape could have happened at 610 N. Buchanan. We know that Collin Finnerty was not at the house, but rather on the move, based on the triangulation of his cell phone records (Durham-in-Wonderland). We also know that (based solely on the quantity of DNA found) it would be more reasonable to charge Brian Meehan with raping Crystal than Reade, Collin, or Dave, since his DNA was found in the rape kit but none from RCD. Facts are stubborn things, whether you are an historian or a chemist.

"We also know that (based solely on the quantity of DNA found) it would be more reasonable to charge Brian Meehan with raping Crystal than Reade, Collin, or Dave, since his DNA was found in the rape kit but none from RCD. Facts are stubborn things, whether you are an historian or a chemist."

When Brad Bannon was examining the DNA evidence, he found Meehan's initials beside one of the DNA profiles found in the rape kit. Ironically, the Meehan DNA profile was stronger than the so-called DNA profile of David Evans on the false fingernail found in the trash can.

If the poster says there is this wealth of physical evidence that Cooper has not released, I would ask this person to tell us what was in that evidence. The only stuff in the files not released have been Crystal's medical records.

I love this logic:

1. There is unreleased physical evidence about the case;2. No one knows what it is;3. Therefore, Crystal is telling the truth.

Now, if you know what this evidence is, then please share it with us so that we can believe that Crystal really has been telling the truth.

Maybe we are supposed to believe that whoever took the rape kit sample at Duke was able to eyeball the DNA and separate it from everything else. Now, whoever could do that would be eligible to win a Nobel Prize in science, given that the person would have known by sight whose DNA was what without knowing the profiles would be quite amazing.

But, we have been treated to amazing leaps of logic throughout this whole sorry affair, and Durham, after all, is Wonderland.

"[Cooper] wasn't at the party. No one knows the truth except the people that were involved."

You keep claiming that, but no matter how many times you claim it, it still won't be correct. When Mangum claims "I was violently raped orally and anally and vaginally by three men who didn't use condoms" and DNA testing sensitive enough to pick up five other men's DNA detects not a trace of DNA from the alleged assailants, we know that Mangum's tale of assault is not the truth.

You cannot simply ignore evidence and its implications when it isn't convenient to the lie you have built so much upon.

"Why won't Roy Cooper release the full disclosure of the duke [hoax] file? Why not release it so the public will know?"

'The public' can already know, if it examines the information that's already public in an unbiased manner, that Mangum told some very obvious lies and continues to tell some very obvious lies.

There are some out there who pretend that we don't know enough about what happened in the house that night, and express a fanatic unswerving belief that there must be some sort of "smoking gun" hidden somewhere in the "complete" case file which would have utterly changed the result of the case. There are also people who hold similar evidence-free delusions about "smoking guns" buried in government files that prove the existence of UFOs, the secret influence of the Illuminati, the faking of the Apollo moon landings, and a nearly infinite number of other crank beliefs. The authorities have no obligation to open files merely in order to appease cranks. If any such "smoking gun" existed, Nifong would have brought it to public attention long ago when he was trying to prop the decaying sham of his prosecution.

'"The only information Cooper needed that he didn't have was whether Mangum was knowingly inventing false stories or simply deluding herself into believing things that never happened because of mental illness".

Cooper had nothing otherwise he would have charged Ms Mangum with a crime. This is why he didn't.'

Cooper had the fact that Mangum had told at least five different contradictory versions of the alleged assault, meaning that she had told at least four different false stories of the alleged assault. (Again, what is your justification for giving Mangum a free pass for the false accusations she made against Kim Roberts?) The physical evidence made it utterly clear that all Mangum's tales of assault were untrue.

"But what Cooper did know was a theft occured and he passed on charging the thieves with a crime. When you're white it's alright."

Cooper knew that no one took Mangum's money away from her; it was still waiting with the rest of her possessions and if she hadn't been drastically intoxicated through her own actions, she probably would've collected it that night.

"Furthermore, Ms Mangum is still speaking publicly that an assault happened."

This is not surprising. When she was interviewed by the special prosecutors, Mangum told them that on the night of the party she had been dancing in the bedroom and she continued to insist that she was dancing in the bedroom even when shown the photographic proof that the dancing had happened in the living room. Her continuing to tell a lie will not magically change the universe to make it something other than a lie.

"UNC didn't shut down her speaking engagement either."

Which only means that there are people at UNC either gullible enough to still believe Mangum's lies or corrupt enough to want Mangum's lies still to be told despite their exposure as a hoax.

"The declaration of innocence was laughable. When have we ever witnessed an Attorney General declaring someone innocent?"

Under the US legal system, someone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. When the evidence shows very clearly that there was never even sufficient reason to consider the crime to have occurred, much less consider that person a suspect in the crime, a declaration of innocence is entirely appropriate.

"There is a system in place in this country. A person is either guilty or not guilty in a court of law."

False. The system in this country is that the prosecutor evaluates the evidence and decides whether there is enough evidence to justify subjecting that person to a trial in the first place. What Cooper did was simply to undo the damage done by Michael Nifong's corrupt abuse of the legal system as an instrument of self-promotion.

"Ms Mangum has paid her debt to society. She doesn't owe anyone anything."

You keep saying that but the fact is that Mangum's lies caused massive waste of both private and governmental resources and far from ever having paid her debt for that offense she is actually profiting from it.

"Ms Mangum has suffered horribly in many ways whether you want to face the facts or not."

If she has suffered horribly it is because she has not gotten the right help for her mental illness. She cannot have suffered horribly from 'the assault' because the assault is and always was just a figment of her troubled imagination.

"She has spoken publicly twice and still claims an assault happened."

The fact that a known liar keeps telling a lie does not change it into something other than a lie.

"I sympathize with her deeply because I know the justice system has never been fair to minorities."

The justice system has in fact been tremendously unfair to minorities. This situation is made worse, not better, when minorities demand that the justice system be tremendously unfair to those in the majority.

One of the great ironies of this case is that those who purport to support the rights of minorities could have used this case to their advantage. For instance, when it became public knowledge that the only time Mangum ever "identified" her assailants was in a photographic procedure that did not employ the safeguards mandated in the police's own standards for such procedures, the NC NAACP and other groups could have quite rightfully blasted the police for deliberately bypassing the standards that safeguard the innocent from false prosecutions -- thus lessening the chances that sometime in the future, the police would decide to cut the same corners when public pressure was high to get a conviction against a minority defendant. Sadly, the NC NAACP utterly flubbed this opportunity, showing that they actually support police corruption if the targets of that corruption are of the wrong race and socioeconomic class.

"I will stand with her and support her until she says otherwise."

Why stop there? Frankly, I fully expect that if Mangum came forward with a press conference tomorrow and said "I'm so sorry, everyone, I made the whole thing up and I was aware all along that I was doing nothing but telling lies" you would just add Mangum's own confession to the long, long list of things that you completely ignore because they don't fit your preposterous theories.

""If Ms Mangum was so intoxicated upon her arrival to the party---Why did Dave Evans offer drinks to her?"

I asked the question because supporters of the accused state Ms Mangum was drunk upon arrival. But we know Jason Bissey witnessed a sober woman walking up to the house.

So I throw the question right back in your face; if Ms Mangum was drunk upon arrival to the party, why did Dave Evans offer an intoxicated woman a drink?

See, YOU can't have it both ways because I'm going to challenge your crap of lies that you try to twist & turn."

It is your contention that Crystal Gail Mangum was able to present the appearance of non-intoxication to Jason Bissey. (Actually, it's your contention that Mangum presenting the appearance of non-intoxication to Jason Bissey proves that she wasn't intoxicated, but that's obvious nonsense.)

If Crystal Gail Mangum was able to present the appearance of non-intoxication to Jason Bissey, which you are still insisting is the case, we have no reason to believe that she couldn't have also appeared non-intoxicated to David Evans -- especially since we have no idea how long David Evans had to observe her before offering her the drink.

At a dance once, I asked a girl I knew if she wanted to dance with me. I recognized that she seemed more "up" and bubbly than I was used to seeing in her, but until we started dancing and I had to use considerable effort to keep us from toppling over onto other dancers I didn't know that her unusual cheer was due, not to the night going especially well for her, but to her being quite intoxicated. And that was someone that I already knew. You can claim all you like that Mangum could not be intoxicated without Jason Bissey seeing it from next door and David Evans seeing it before offering her a drink, but it's just another big, loud claim that you make without being able to support.

To the 8:21,I spoke with the woman who teaches forensic chemistry here about the case. She made it clear that she is no fan of the players, but that there is no way that a rape as Ms. Mangum described it could have taken place without leaving DNA behind. If you believe that a rape did occur, then your prime suspects ought to be those whose DNA was found, not any lacrosse player.

To the 8:47The players's torsos were photographed when they gave DNA. If Nifong had evidence that Ms. Mangum scratched David Evans, he would have had to disclose it to the defense, and it would have been seen by whoever saw the case file (Duff Wilson, for example). If you know something that the rest of us do not, tell us what it is.

....The players's torsos were photographed when they gave DNA. If Nifong had evidence that Ms. Mangum scratched David Evans, he would have had to disclose it to the defense,.....oh it was turned over alright...... and it would have been seen by whoever saw the case file (Duff Wilson, for example)......why do you think Duff Wilson saw everything?.............Now how about Joe Neff?....... If you know something that the rest of us do not, tell us what it is.....why doesn't Lacrosse Historian KC Johnson tell us First?....but, no,it's much much too late for that....

"If you know something that the rest of us do not, tell us what it is"

Sorry, SouthernGirl, you've got it completely backwards, and not for the first time. You have shared your speculation that Mangum scratched David Evans. Until you can actually provide some evidence to support your speculation, it remains exactly that: pointless baseless speculation, dreamed up by a desperate fanatic who found reality not to her liking and sought refuge in her imagination.

Blatant perjury, most likely.David Evans was not indicted for perjury. He was accused of rape, kidnapping, and sexual assault. Furthermore, it seems that he was telling the truth in his statement to the police, which is more than I can say for some of the posters on this blog. For that matter, Nifong perjured himself on numerous occasions during his testimony before the NC Bar.

What they are doing is making accusations that were NOT made during the crisis, and then demanding that we prove that these things did not happen. This is the height of dishonesty, but perhaps that is what we should expect from Crystal's supporters.

And, no, there was no DNA from David Evans or anyone else found under Crystal's fingernails. The nail in question was a false fingernail that was in the trash can. It had a combination of a number of people on it, but no singular DNA profile of anyone.

From what I understand, the "alpha" for the "match" to David Evans was about two percent, which is garbage in forensics DNA, where real-live "matches" have an alpha of a zero, followed by about nine other zeros before even reaching a number. In other words, it is something like 0.0000000002 as opposed to 0.02 as was the case with Evans. (The "alpha" is the probability of a type two error in which the null hypothesis is rejected when it should be accepted.)

What does that mean in regular talk? It means that there was no real DNA match between Evans and Crystal, and Nifong and Meehan knew it. As I posted earlier, the match with Meehan, despite his wearing of layers of protective clothing, was much stronger than that of Evans, which means that for forensics purposes, Meehan would have been more likely to have assaulted Crystal than was David Evans.

Granted, to the people on this blog spreading lies, that won't matter, but I want the other readers of this blog to know exactly what the science was saying.

The logic that the Crystal enablers use really is something. First, they insist that Duke University "tampered" with the DNA, something that is not scientifically possible. In other words, Duke could not have taken away the lacrosse players' DNA but left the DNA of other people.

Second, they take peripheral issues and insist that they "prove" there was a rape. For example, I have no idea if David Evans left off Reade's name, but since Reade left early, maybe he might have done it.

Let us say that David did this. Does that mean he lied? The person earlier said David committed "perjury." Perjury is a crime committed when one lies under oath. The gist of the captains' statements was true.

However, if we are going to push the realm of perjury, then by all means let us do that. Let us begin with the fact that Duke's lawyers during the summer of 2006 lied to the court about the release of FERPA-protected information. Now, an attorney who lies to a judge should be disbarred, yet none of those attorneys lost anything. Nifong was disbarred, but he even managed to lie under oath at both the Bar hearing and the contempt hearing.

During the Bar hearing, he insisted that during his conversation with Bob Ekstrand, he told Ekstrand that if the players had any helpful information, then they should notify him.

What actually took place, according to Ekstrand (and given Nifong's overall behavior seems to be more in line with the truth) was that Nifong told him that if the players did not tell him about the "rape" and who did it, that all of them would be prosecuted and imprisoned. He said, "I'll remember this at their sentencing."

It is interesting that Crystal insisted that Brad Ross was there, even though Ross had proof he was not. Therefore, to use the logic of the enablers, Crystal was lying about Brad Ross.

All of this is proof to me that Durham would not have been capable of holding a fair trial in this case. When you see people insisting that lies are the truth, then there is no hope for the place. None.

We already have seen how these people are ignorant of how DNA works and what it means. The way they get around it is to lie or to invent new conspiracy theories that fall into the realm of science fiction.

So SouthernGirl shows her dishonesty by repeating "questions" that were already answered for her elsewhere, such as this one:

"IIRC, Some thought Dave Evans threw Ms Mangum's nails in the trash but it was Matt Zash that threw them away. How did Dave Evans dna get on that nail?"

As SouthernGirl well knows, the nails were found in the bathroom wastebasket in David Evans' own house. All that had to happen for Dave Evans' DNA to get on that nail was for them to touch some piece of refuse in that wastebasket that had Evans' DNA on it -- a Kleenex he sneezed into and then tossed away, for example. It's not like we needed any more proof that SouthernGirl is dishonest, but this is it: it was already clearly explained to her that a person's DNA is going to be in their own bathroom wastebasket, but here she is again, and she's even asking the same bizarre stupid question of whether other items in David Evans' own bathroom trash were tested for David Evans' DNA.

Blatant perjury, most likely.' David Evans was not indicted for perjury."

Entirely correct, Bill. David Evans wasn't indicted for perjury; he was almost certainly indicted by means of blatant perjury given to the grand jury by Gottlieb and Himan.

After all, it's already been shown that to get warrant, the police were making claims that the information in their files didn't support. Who is actually naive enough to think that they wouldn't do the same, and worse, when trying to get an indictment from the grand jury? If they lied to get warrants, despite knowing that the warrants could be checked later, how much bolder would they be lying to the grand jury, knowing that the grand jury transcripts would be sealed afterwards?

"Seligmann was not listed on any of the three captains statements, taken at the 2nd District Durham Police substation, after the police searched 610 NB and collected evidence."

If that's true, so what? Each of the three captains listed the people that they remembered seeing at the party, but there were somewhere between 40 and 50 people there. No captain would be likely to have seen and remembered every single person who was there, and Seligmann, by all accounts, is a fairly quiet individual. If none of the three captains remembered seeing Seligmann there, there's no reason to think it anything more than a coincidence.

Unlike, say, Mangum insisting that she was dancing in the bedroom of the house when photos from the night of the party clearly showed her dancing in the living room, or her now claiming in her "book" that she didn't even arrive late for the party, when testimony from the party guests, from Kim Roberts, and from her driver, not to mention the time-stamped receipt from the gas station they stopped on while on their way to the party, all establish that she was at least half-an-hour late. The only "innocent" explanation for Mangum telling these falsehoods is that she is so muddled by mental illness she can't actually remember the truth anymore, and there is no explanation for why anyone would believe Mangum's wild, preposterous claims after she tells provable falsehoods about such easily checked matters.

"Seligmann was not listed on any of the three captains statements, taken at the 2nd District Durham Police substation, after the police searched 610 NB and collected evidence."

"If that's true, so what"?

So what? If he lied then, what else did he lie about. Seligmann was left off the lists of all three captains.

There is a photo of Reade Seligmann sitting within reach of Kim Pittman. How could Evans not remember him being there?

Didn't Dave Evans state the team wasn't allowed to have a mustache/beard? But judging from some photos taken at the party, at least 4 or 5 guys have a 5' o clock shadow. On the night of the party, Matt Zash looks as if he has a full beard.

To the 9:34,Please provide us with a link to the photographs of David Evans that you discuss. Contrary to your assertions, the lacrosse players have spoken about the party in Until Proven Innocent, among other places. At least two of the three indicted players (Evans and Finnerty) took lie detector tests administered by highly trained individuals (DIW). The three captains had offered to take such tests, but the Durham police turned them down.

Speaking of people who were not there, why don't you explain how Crystal managed to identify Brad Ross with 100% certainty when he was not even in Durham that night?

To the 8:26,If you are saying that you would like there to be transcripts of grand jury proceedings, then I agree. The idea that the false fingernails corroborate a struggle is utterly without support. Transfer of DNA is not a controversial phenomenon in forensic chemistry. Where were the scratch marks on Evans or anyone else? Show us the photos.Chris

To the 10:17,The players also talked about the party in "It's not about the truth." Therefore, your original assertion that the players said noting is utterly in tatters. I would ask whether you want to get to the truth, but the answer is obvious.

Exactly right, Chris. We are seeing the fans of Crystal and Vince lying through their teeth. No, it was NOT a 99.9% "match," and it was not a "match" at all, scientifically speaking.

Furthermore, there was what we call "DNA transfer" of about 14 people on that fingernail, but given that it was in Evans' house with other items he had touched in the trash can, I would not be surprised to see something akin to his DNA profile in an item in the trash can.

The incentive for Cooper, Coman, and Winstead was to find a way to bring the case to trial. Don't forget that it was not "Michael B. Nifong vs. the defendants," but the "State of North Carolina vs. the defendants." In other words, the justice system of North Carolina was behind the indictments, and politically it would have been better for Cooper to push it to trial.

However, it was clear after the investigation that Crystal was lying and that the science did not allow for the kinds of charges that were levied. Nonetheless, I see that in the "anonymous" posting, we are seeing why at least some people in Durham are not fit to examine any kind of evidence or to make decisions affecting the lives of others; they simply are too dishonest.

Even a 99.9% "match" in DNA science is not a "magic bullet" without some other corroborating evidence. This "David Evans really had a moustache" nonsense is too much. If the anonymous poster has that picture, as Chris has stated, then show it to us.

No, there is no picture. He had no moustache, beard, or anything else regarding such facial hair. Once again, we are dealing with lies, but that is what we expect from Crystal and her supporters. Lies, lies, and more lies.

By the way, don't think for a second that you can spar with either Chris or me on DNA. I may know statistics well, but Chris is a heck of a lot better on the subject than I am, and both of us are better than you.

Give it up, whoever you are. You are lying, and whenever you post a lie, we can counteract it with the truth. By the way, every time you post one of these lies, the attorneys for the players record them for the record, and your lies only further the case that the players have been making. So, on behalf of the players and their families, I thank you for demonstrating that Durham, Nifong, and Duke deserve the lawsuits against them.

In one version of the alleged assault, Crystal Gail Mangum claimed that she and Kim Roberts clung tearfully to each other, trying not to be separated, until the players finally dragged them apart and Roberts and Mangum were each assaulted individually. In another version of the alleged assault, Mangum claimed that Roberts was an accomplice to the players, and helped hold Mangum down so that the players could assault her. Since it is impossible for both versions of the assault to be true, which version do you acknowledge to be false? when we know Crystal Gail Mangum has told a false story of assault, why do you think anyone should believe that some other story of hers about assault is true?There's an old idiom about double standards of evidence; someone is said to "strain at a gnat while swallowing an elephant". That has been SouthernGirl's modus operandi here and elsewhere: she spouts nonsensical, already-debunked claims such as that the contents of a bathroom wastebasket in David Evans' own house would need to be tested for his DNA before it would be logical and reasonable to expect something to pick up his DNA from that wastebasket, and demands that others waste their time trying to explain to her why this is asinine. Yet when it comes to the incredibly flimsy, already-torn-to-shreds lies of the proven liar Crystal Gail Mangum, the woman who can't even correctly identify which room she was dancing in that night after being told the answer and shown the photographs SouthernGirl simply pretends that the very good questions being put to her about Mangum's credibility were never asked.

SouthernGirl has certainly had all the opportunities she could want to demand that things be explained for her or that evidence be produced for her, even if she has (in the long-running traditions of cranks and crackpots) automatically dismissed as "lies" anything that doesn't fit what she wants to be true. But if she is unwilling to even explain for us which of Mangum's many different versions of the assault she believes to be true then obviously she's not interested in fair, rational discussion, and there's no reason she should have posting privileges.

Hey, SouthernGirl, guess what? You've already had your chance to ask those sorts of questions. Now no one is interested in hearing what you have to say until you answer a simple question: Which one of Mangum's varied accounts do you believe, and why should anyone believe it when it's coming from the same proven liar who told all those other accounts? Fanciful speculation that Nifong must've had a smoking gun that he never revealed to anyone -- when revealing it might have saved him from disbarment and jail time -- save it for your fellow conspiracy theorists.

To the 11:59The complete case file indicates that there was no evidence besides the identifications (no corroborating witness, no scratches on the players, no DNA, etc.). We also now know that Seligmann and Finnerty had alibis, despite the comments at 5:03 PM.

However, the NC rape law puts a heavy emphasis on what the complaining witness says.

"now WHAT was Joseph Blount Cheshire V so concerned aboutYou've said that several times, scratches. Why do you think that Cheshire was concerned about your myths? What makes you think that Cheshire was overly concerned about any of the innuendo you spew?

This is the last comment in the form of a question that I will clear. I will not clear further comments that refer to undisclosed evidence unless the commenter says exactly what the evidence is and how he or she knows it. Please feel free to answer your own question.

Thanks Chris. Now maybe the discussion can focus on the topic you have reported on.

What was your impression of the audience's reaction to Mangum's and Clark's comments? Receptive or skeptical? Do you think there were many in attendance who gave any credence to what Mangum and Clark had to say?

Just before Brad Bannon and Jim Cooney cut Brian Meehan a new one in the December 15 hearing, the trolls were on the Liestoppers page claiming that Nifong had found an eyewitness to the crime. Well, in a way he did, but his eyewitness was none other than his "expert" Meehan.

Now we have the Cave trolls claiming that there were pictures being hidden by the defense. That belongs in the Wendy Murphy School of Big Lies. The idea is this: tell a really big lie with the idea that if the lie is big enough, people will reject most of it, but claim, "Something happened."

For example, that is how Nancy Lamb was able to get wrongful convictions in the Little Rascals case. She made wild accusations and had the children coached to make even wilder ones (like the time they were put into a rocket, or thrown to sharks or had babies cooked in microwave ovens). In her closing arguments, she agreed that many of the things the kids claimed just could not be true, but the fact that they made wild accusations was "proof that something happened."

That is what we are getting here. It is very easy for a prosecutor to get an indictment in North Carolina. The grand jury that day returned more than 80 indictments, which means that they heard the police officers say something, and that was it. There were no "forensic" witnesses or anything like that.

However, I only saw Vincent Clark, not Crystal Mangum. The one person with whom I spoke extensively was not very familiar with the case, but she did not seem to be a rabid Crystal-supporter. For those of you who are interested, I wrote a summary of Ms. Mangum's book:

I don't know Debra, did Johnson even ask the 2 people in the DA's office what was going on? I mean there are a lot of reasons one person's salary goes up and another goes down. Are these people even upset about the situation? Before I get involved in a letter writing campaign, I would hope I had some assurance that it is something they want, and that they felt they were treated unfairly. The only evidence I see is a salary figure from last year and one from this year.

Gee diva(h),KC lists three horrible things that Cline has done. First, this salary thing that we know little about other than some salaries have gone up and some have gone down. The why of that appears at this point to be pure speculation on his part. Second, he tells us that Cline was on the witness stand facing allegations of misconduct but doesn't bother to mention the fact that his hero, Roy Cooper, sent 2 people from his office to argue FOR Cline's position and that the judge agreed with Cline on this issue as well. Third, Cline had the nerve to invite Nifong to her swearing-in party. Wow, that is really something to start a letter writing campaign over. The whole post is evidence of extreme paranoia on his part, in my opinion.

To all,Never in my experience have I seen someone invited to speak at a university and not take questions. Given the contretemps over John Updike's visit here, I might have wished for screening on that particular evening. My university even expects undergraduates doing independent study to do so. Ms. Mangum is a college graduate.

To the 11:59 AM,A recent book on this case, "Race to Injustice," has a chapter devoted to what is wrong with the grand jury system. Basically, it fails as a check against prosecutorial overreach.

To the 2:24 PMThanks. In the fall of 2007 I submitted a piece to Duke Students for an Ethical Duke, which made me realize that I liked reporting. Maybe if I ever do blow up my lab accidently, I will change careers (J/K).

To the 3:52 PM,The answer is DNA from two unidentified males.

To the 11:20 AM,Inviting someone whose conduct caused him to be disbarred seems to me to be throwing down the gauntlet to a large group of people who believe Nifong acted unethically and illegally. I would be eager ask Ms. Cline her reasons for doing so.

To Duke Dad,What do you think about the concept of the event held at UNC, Chapel Hill?

replying to your "To Duke Dad,What do you think about the concept of the event held at UNC, Chapel Hill?"

The event, People Wrongly Convicted, is a valid topic. With nearly all criminal cases resolved by settlement, there certainly are a number of people who cop a plea and serve a few years, rather than risk decades behind bars.

There are also a significant number of cases where the wrong person gets convicted. Which means the criminal goes free.

Police and prosecutors get recognition for collaring and convicting ANYONE for a crime, and suffer no repercussions when it is done improperly. There is no meaningful watchdog over CSI and lab tests. We need to make corrections in these situations.

Precious was a case of someone telling a lie. RCD were declared "Innocent" by AG Roy Cooper because NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED (except Mangum's filing a false report).

To repeat the words of others, "Crystal came late, left early and had nothing of value to say". Refusing to answer questions shows just how much of a sham it all was.

Ad hominems, red herrings, non sequiturs, illogical tangents, and plain ranting are narcissistic. The only possible outcome, besides feeding the ego of the ranter, is losing the interest of those here for a serious discussion

These trolls are spread out over the LAX Hoax blogs. Their lies and rants annoy, but do not convince.

I have been erring on the side of allowing comments in unless they clearly violate the guidelines but no more. Please keep future comments, on-topic and free of insults or unsupported innuendo, or your comments will not be posted and you risk lose commenting privileges permanently.

Did you get a sense of the audience reaction when Vincent Clark started talking about "what if [Crystal] is lying"? Admittedly, I find it hard to understand what's going on in the mind of anyone who still believes Crystal is telling the truth, but I can only imagine it would have been a shock if I believed that Vincent Clark was trying to help Crystal get the truth out and then discovered that he'd only found a way to justify to his conscience the possibility that he was aiding and abetting a liar. (Doesn't give one much reason to believe his accounts of almost getting Crystal's story on the air only to have it killed by Pressure From Above -- but then, those still in the Cult of Crystal don't tend to worry overmuch about having reasoning behind their beliefs, it seems...)

Duke Dad is absolutely right. Wrongful convictions and the treatment of African-Americans in our courts are legitimate areas of focus, and I have written about them elsewhere. However, the thing that really distresses me is seeing how African-Americans, when they have power, pretty much do what the worst of the white racists in Mississippi did 40 years ago.

This is not justice. It simply is the doing of evil. One does not undo evil by doing evil.

The behavior of the NAACP and Irving Joyner in the lacrosse case was shameful, just shameful. If this is what these people call "justice," then there really is no hope for this country. One does not "do justice" by doing injustice.

"However, the thing that really distresses me is seeing how African-Americans, when they have power, pretty much do what the worst of the white racists in Mississippi did 40 years ago."

This is the only part of your comment I disagree with, Bill, and only because you didn't put "some" between "how" and "African-Americans". There were many African-Americans who were able to look past race and see that what Nifong did to "rich white boys" today in order to get ahead was exactly what would be done to poor black defendants as soon as they were unlucky enough to be picked as scapegoats.

Yes, it's shameful that the NC NAACP and Irving Joyner behaved so poorly, but they weren't representative of all African-Americans by any means.

To the 7:48 PM yesterday,The audience did not respond noticeably at this point, to the best of my recollection. When he was asked whether she should be charged with filing a false claim, he pointed to AG Roy Cooper's statement that she seemed to believe her stories and said that if you accept the finding of innocence, you must accept all of Cooper's conclusions. Clark's reply could be construed as backing away from his previous rhetorical questions. I would add that Clark seems to welcome discourse.

To the 5:56 PM todayI will not clear comments which gratuitously insult/attack others.

"When he was asked whether she should be charged with filing a false claim, he pointed to AG Roy Cooper's statement that she seemed to believe her stories and said that if you accept the finding of innocence, you must accept all of Cooper's conclusions."

Which I don't believe is actually the case.

When Roy Cooper says that none of the lacrosse players committed the violent sex acts upon Mangum that she claimed, he is basing that conclusion upon forensic science and physical evidence: that the violent sex acts alleged would have left DNA traces, and no such DNA traces were found even though the testing was obviously capable of finding DNA that was there.

By contrast, Cooper's conclusion that Mangum actually believes the stories she tells -- that's not based on physical evidence and well-tested scientific principles. It may have been based on her mental health history (the one that Vincent Clark would surely like people to believe was not significant enough to affect Cooper's conclusion!) but it eventually comes down to Cooper taking a best guess as to what actually went on in Mangum's mind.

It is quite reasonable to think that Cooper's conclusions based on the physical evidence were correct and those based on his assessment of Mangum's internal state were mistaken. It's quite hilarious to see Vincent Clark try to have it the other way around, and try to say that Cooper got it all wrong when he had physical evidence, but that when he was essentially guessing at Mangum's state of mind his guess becomes Holy Writ and cannot be questioned.

(Also, this is something where I freely admit that I am not aware of the relevant law, but -- is believing your false stories really an absolute defense to prosecution for filing a false claim?)

To the 5:56 PMI cleared your comments, because I judged that the potential interest in its content outweighed the use of insults (barely). I ask that all commenters criticize in a civil way only one another's ideas and not direct demeaning language at the individual himself or herself.

Professor Joyner would be expected to know better than most of us how important a witness identification is in a rape trial in North Carolina. That makes his support of the flawed lineup (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-27-duke-race_N.htm) all the more unconscionable. Is that what you mean by the NCNAACP's doing its job?

"Professor Joyner would be expected to know better than most of us how important a witness identification is in a rape trial in North Carolina. That makes his support of the flawed lineup (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-27-duke-race_N.htm) all the more unconscionable. Is that what you mean by the NCNAACP's doing its job"?

The NAACP was founded to assure equality for African Americans because blacks were treated horribly in the areas of education, politics and economics.

This is the reason the NAACP stood with Ms Mangum. They became a watchdog on the Duke Lacrosse rape case to make sure Ms Mangum was treated fairly. When she wasn't, they asked the judge to issue a gag order. And rightly so, because the case was being tried in the Media to garner support for rich white men.

It is beyond the pale to suggest when African Americans have power, they do what the worst of white racists in Mississippi did 40 years ago! The comment IS insulting to all African Americans.

40 years ago was a horrible time for the black Americans living in America. People suffered & died for something that was their Constitutional right. Don't dare make little of it.

You evaded answering my question, so I will ask it again in a different way. Once Ms. Mangum identified suspects from a lineup with no fillers, her subsequent identifications of them in court would be based on her memory of their photos in the tainted lineup. That would be enough to "support" a verdict of guilty in a rape case in NC, which in this instance would have sent three innocent men to prison for many years. Thus Joyner's approval of the flawed lineup procedure could have led to a miscarriage of justice. If you think otherwise, now is the time to say so. If you still defend the NCNAACP, please explain how supporting unfair lineup procedures is in the interest of African-Americans? If you have nothing to say about Joyner and the lineup, I would be grateful if you ceased from trying to change the subject.

"The NC NAACP did their job in the Duke Rape Case because that's what the group was founded to do."

The NAACP has as its goal looking out for the interests of African-Americans. But those include the long-term interests of African-Americans, not just short-term interests.

It certainly wasn't in the long-term interests of African-Americans to encourage police and prosecutors to disregard both the letter and the spirit of the law to "get" defendants who are unpopular with the crowd; anyone who says differently clearly has no idea how often in our history the "defendant unpopular with the crowd" has been the African-American. Even if we were to take the extreme position which 5:56 PM seems to assume, that the NAACP's "job" is to place the interests of African-Americans above all other interests (a frankly racist proposition), it was still not in the interests of African-Americans for the NAACP to condone and encourage the corruption of the justice system for political ends.

One more comment about Vince Clark. When he was speaking of the time he had spent with Ms. Mangum, his affinity for her was palpable, and to this observer, genuine. One could interpret this as empathizing with her, regardless of her motives. I cannot say that Mr. Clark's true feelings were obvious to me when he spoke of other matters.

To the 3:15,Your claim about the lineup has been debunked on several occasions. If Joyner's ideas about lineups were always followed, we would have many more innocent people behind bars. There is a chapter in "Race to Injustice" on this general subject that is well worth one's time to read. Let us know what you think.

The Durham police did indeed purport that the April 4th photo identification procedure that resulted in Mangum identifying (four) members of the lacrosse team as her (three) alleged assailants, and three of them being so charged, was not actually intended for the identification of suspects at all.

Anyone who would believe that, probably also believes in the Tooth Fairy.

Regardless of whether or not it was admitted that the purpose of the procedure was to try and elicit identification of suspects, the fact that it did not incorporate the established departmental safeguards designed to guard against the very well-known phenomenon of false eyewitness identifications (the relevant policy that the April 4 procedure violated is called "General Order 4077 on Eyewitness Identification", not "General Order 4077 on Eyewitness Identification of Suspects") means that the results did not constitute reliable evidence, and would not have been used by the police if the police were actually attempting to do justice.

But then again, with Mangum "identifying" four individuals as her three alleged assailants, it was already obvious that the results were bogus.

It is beyond the pale to suggest when African Americans have power, they do what the worst of white racists in Mississippi did 40 years ago!Yet that's exactly what the NC NAACP did, or tried to do. The NC NAACP's performance in the Duke LAX case WAS insulting to all Americans, African or not.

But then again, with Mangum "identifying" four individuals as her three alleged assailants, it was already obvious that the results were bogus.

To say nothing of the fact that one of the 4 "identified" by CGM was miles away from Durham the entire night, leading one ID expert to point out that this made CGM that most dangerous of witnesses, one who is both 'positive' and wrong.

You did well to point out that it doesn't matter what the DPD's & DA's intent was with the Apr 4 lineup - the fact that the lineup included DPD / DA - declared suspects, and only suspects, renders the lineup violative of GO 4077.

"You did well to point out that it doesn't matter what the DPD's & DA's intent was with the Apr 4 lineup - the fact that the lineup included DPD / DA - declared suspects, and only suspects, renders the lineup violative of GO 4077."

And the fact that the lineup omitted people known to be at the party who weren't lacrosse players indicates pretty clearly that the intent wasn't to reliably identify people at the party or even to reliably identify suspects. The intent was to counterfeit an identification which matched the political ends of Nifong and the Durham Police.

"Yet that's exactly what the NC NAACP did, or tried to do. The NC NAACP's performance in the Duke LAX case WAS insulting to all Americans, African or not".

What the NC NAACP did in the duke lacrosse case certainly DIDN'T insult African Americans because they understood what it meant. The NC NAACP was forced to intervene because the defense was trying the case in the Media when it should have been tried in a court room. Our courts are where cases are tried to determine guilty or not guilty. In the duke lacrosse case, it seems white privilege changed that.

"The NC NAACP was forced to intervene because the defense was trying the case in the Media when it should have been tried in a court room."

If that had been the case, where else would media attention on the case be strongest than right where the alleged assault occurred? If things had really been as 12:59 PM purports, then the NC NAACP should have pushed for a change of venue to counteract the effects of an unethical media blitz, while the defense would have struggled to keep the venue right in Durham where the media exposure had done the most to pervert the cause of justice.

But as we know, that's not what happened. The side that was calling for a change of venue to counteract an unethical media blitz was the defense, and it was the NC NAACP who called to keep the venue right in Durham where the media exposure had done the most to pervert the cause of justice. The NC NAACP, which had stood idly by while Nifong gave by his own estimates 50 interviews consuming 40 hours during just one week, and never gave the slightest hint of being concerned that the prosecutor was "trying the case in the Media when it should have been tried in a court room."

"The side that was calling for a change of venue to counteract an unethical media blitz was the defense, and it was the NC NAACP who called to keep the venue right in Durham where the media exposure had done the most to pervert the cause of justice".

No, you're wrong. The defense held dog and pony shows and used the Media to garner sympathy for the accused. I believe the defense filed a motion for change of venue because they didn't believe a black jury in Durham would judge fairly, which is/was a blatant lie.

"'The side that was calling for a change of venue to counteract an unethical media blitz was the defense, and it was the NC NAACP who called to keep the venue right in Durham where the media exposure had done the most to pervert the cause of justice'.

No, you're wrong. The defense held dog and pony shows and used the Media to garner sympathy for the accused. I believe the defense filed a motion for change of venue because they didn't believe a black jury in Durham would judge fairly, which is/was a blatant lie."

Let's pretend for a second that everything you have written above is believable, which it is not. Why would the NC NAACP oppose the change of venue? You might say "To make sure that the case was heard in Durham, where they were most likely to get a jury made up mostly of African-Americans." In fact that's pretty much what NC NAACP spokesperson Irving Joyner did say in arguing against the change of venue. Yet think about what that says: Joyner did not think that the case could be won on the evidence alone; he believed that Nifong needed a jury with a particular racial bias in order to prevail. Joyner is obviously not trying to see that justice is done; justice doesn't need a stacked deck. I think you'd see that, if it was a white lawyer saying that in order for "justice" to be done in a particular case they needed as many whites as possible on the jury.

That's why the NC NAACP had no legitimate reason to oppose a change of venue. And, as said before, if there was unfair pre-trial publicity, the place most affected by it would have been the very place where it happened, Durham -- so if we pretend for a second that the NC NAACP was indeed "forced to intervene because the defense was trying the case in the Media", they should have been trying to get the trial away from Durham. You know? As in, away from where all those alleged "dog and pony" shows by the defense took place?

In any case, the claim that the defense somehow got an unfair advantage on the prosecution through pre-trial publicity is absolute ludicrous in view of the facts. Nifong's use of the media to spin the case was jaw-dropping both in its volume (remember Nifong's own estimate of over 50 interviews in a single week) and in its cynical dishonesty (remember Nifong graphically demonstrating the chokehold with which the players had supposedly grabbed Mangum? Remember how later he said that at that point in the case, neither he nor anyone from his office had yet interviewed Mangum? Remember how in Mangum's interview with Levicy she told Levicy that she had not been choked by her alleged assailants?) Compared to Nifong's blatant media frenzy, exactly what can you point to as an example of these alleged "dog and pony shows" by the defense? And do you really expect anyone to buy it?

I believe the defense filed a motion for change of venue because they didn't believe a black jury in Durham would judge fairly, which is/was a blatant lie.Irving Joyner, NC NAFCP's 'case monitor', opposed the COV because he thought there was a better chance for conviction w/ more blacks on the jury. He didn't think a black Durham jury would judge fairly, either, but wanted the trial in Durham anyway.

"Irving Joyner, NC NAFCP's 'case monitor', opposed the COV because he thought there was a better chance for conviction w/ more blacks on the jury. He didn't think a black Durham jury would judge fairly, either, but wanted the trial in Durham anyway".

That is not true. You're thoroughly wrong about Irving Joyner because no one want to see innocent people go to jail for something they didn't do.

Irving Joyner most likely opposed the change of venue because it smacked of racism!

Answer:"You’ve got a prosecutor playing to race. It’s disgusting. If he’s willing to [make race an issue] to go after what he thinks are three white kids with influence, what will he do going against some poor black kid in a case where people are saying, ‘You’ve got to convict somebody?’"

.... James E. Coleman, Jr., Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law 1987 NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund Pro Bono Award for contribution to enforcement of civil rights laws

9:34 PM/11:14 AM, you really need to learn that there is more to convincing argumentation than just saying "you're wrong" when someone says something you don't want to hear. You need to substantiate your argument with logic and with facts and you will only convince people to the extent that your logic and your facts hold up.

For instance, your statement "You're thoroughly wrong about Irving Joyner because no one want to see innocent people go to jail for something they didn't do" just fails completely, because "no one want to see innocent people go to jail for something they didn't do" is false. To claim that premise is to claim that there are people out there evil enough to murder innocent victims, people out there evil enough to rape innocent victims, people out there evil enough to create secret hideaways in the basements of their house and kidnap innocent victims and imprison them there for years and years -- but there's "no one" who would ever dream of using the legal system as their weapon for hurting innocent victims. That's an preposterous notion even before we start looking for real-life examples of frameups and find plenty.

Even if -- purely for the sake of argument -- we were able to absolutely determine that Irving Joyner, himself, would never knowingly try to put an innocent person in jail for something they didn't do, would that mean that Irving Joyner had not tried to steer the trial of the Duke players towards a jury that he thought would judge unfairly? No, of course not! There are plenty of people out there who think that they're allowed to cut corners as long as they get the "right" result at the end; if Irving Joyner had already decided in his own mind that the lacrosse players were guilty (do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise??) he might very well convince his conscience that it would be okay if the lacrosse players were denied a fair trial, and instead given a trial that delivered the 'correct' verdict because the jurors were already prejudiced against "rich white boys" from Duke and because Nifong had used the newspapers and television and radio to contaminate the jury pool with lies.

"Irving Joyner most likely opposed the change of venue because it smacked of racism!"

When the defense put forth their argument in favor of a change of venue, they specifically cited all Nifong's efforts to contaminate the jury pool with inflammatory language and with blatant falsehoods through the media. They cited all the evidence of rampant prejudice against the players in Durham (including, yes, people who came right out and said they wanted to see the players prosecuted for the crime whether it happened or not -- so much for your fantasy that "no one" ever wants that.)

No one on the defense cited the race of the prospective jurors as a motice for either changing or not changing the venue. It was Irving Joyner who put forth the idea that the decision on the change of venue should be influenced by race. That is a suggestion that smacks of racism.

Answer:"You’ve got a prosecutor playing to race. It’s disgusting. If he’s willing to [make race an issue] to go after what he thinks are three white kids with influence, what will he do going against some poor black kid in a case where people are saying, ‘You’ve got to convict somebody?’"

.... James E. Coleman, Jr., Professor of Law, Duke University School of Law 1987 NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund Pro Bono Award for contribution to enforcement of civil rights laws

What? Just because James Coleman made a statement does not mean it is written in stone and has become law. What he is suggesting has no truth in it. Try again. The COV smacked of racism & I believe the defense wanted the change to pander to sympathic white people. Is that not wrong also?

That is not true!... Irving Joyner most likely opposed the change of venue because it smacked of racism!You really should try to read Joyner's statements before reflexively denying it, justice58

Irving Joyner:"He (Nifong) still has a viable shot at victory before a jury in Durham...

A Durham jury may see things differently than would an Orange or Wake County jury because the Durham jury will probably have more African-Americans on it than would be involved in most other counties in North Carolina...".Yeah, he actually said that. So much for Joyner & the NAFCP's color-blind 'justice', justice.

"I believe the defense wanted the change to pander to sympathic white people. Is that not wrong also?"

Yes, your belief that the defense wanted a change of venue "to pander to sympathic [sic] white people" is almost certainly completely wrong. You have produced no evidence to support such a conclusion, or indeed any of the claims you have made over the past few days; all you have to offer, it seems, is your own prejudices.

PAGE 193 Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb - 4/1 9/0 7 1 Q. Yeah. For the Police Department 2 analyzing what they had as far as the case there. 3 A. The victim stated that she was being 4 choked or strangled. she stated that she had to fight 5 to breathe. While she was fighting she said she 6 grabbed the man, was fighting to get away, and that is 7 when one of her fingernails was broken off. 8 And what wound up happening was the 9 person that she identified in the photo presentation as 10 being one of the attackers or a possible attacker at 11 90-percent likelihood actually had a scratch on his arm 12 consistent to the DNA that was found under the 13 fingernail

PAGE 203 Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb - 4/1 9/0 7 1 Q. How did it come about the you appeared 2 before the Grand Jury in this case? 3 A. I was subpoenaed. 4 Q. By whom? 5 A. The District Attorney's office. 6 MR. HILL: That's all I have. 7 Mr. Brocker is entitled to ask you 8 some follow-up questions. 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. BROCKER: 10 Q. I just want to make sure I can get a 11 couple of items from somebody else and not keep you 12 here any longer. 13 But you mentioned in the course of Mr. 14 Witt's examination that there was a scratch on 15 Mr. Evans on his arm that was significant to you. 16 Would Investigator -- do you know if there is any 17 documentation of that? 18 A. There were photographs that were taken19 by the Forensics Division and Investigator Himan would 20 have those documents.21 Q. Okay. 22 A. And -if he doesn't have those documents, 23 it would be in Property. 24 Q. And that, I presume, would have been on 25 the night of the 16th when he came in to give a Margaret M. Powell, CVR - (919) 779-0322

PAGE 204 Sgt. M.D. Gottlieb - 4/1 9/0 7 1 statement? Is that when the photographs would have 2 been taken? 3 A. No, that was in the Non-Testimonial. 4 Q. So on the 23rd of March? 5 A. The date of the Non-Testimonial, yes.

who said:"Just because James Coleman made a statement does not mean it is written in stone and has become law. What he is suggesting has no truth in it."

So, let's see. James Coleman has no truth, in your view.

1) James Coleman is a Professor at Duke Law School.2) James Coleman was recognized for his contribution to enforcement of civil rights laws (1987 NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund Pro Bono Award)3) NC Attorney General Roy Cooper takes the case over, reviews it completely and announces: "Nifong is a ROGUE PROSECUTOR" "No Crime Occurred" 4) The NC State Bar Commission revokes Nifong's Law License.5) NO Proof at ALL exists that any Lacrosse Player had sex with Crystal Mangum.6) Mangum changed her story more often than her underwear.

And all you can say ... the ONLY thing you say is -... "Lies ! Racism !"

To the 9:50 PM,Sgt. Gottlieb wrote a report, from memory, of the descriptions of the alleged attackers months after the interview with Ms. Mangum, a report that was vastly different from Detective Himan's contemporary notes. Therefore, he has not one scintilla of credibility. If there really were a scratch, Evans' photograph would have been shown to the grand jury, and he might have been indicted earlier. Mangum's identification of Evans at 90% was contingent upon his having a moustache, which he never did. The DNA was found on the fake fingernail, not under it. The DNA may have come from items in the trash that had touched the fake fingernail. Although Evans was not excluded, neither were roughly twenty thousand other individuals from the triangle (whose population is roughly one million). Your arguments have all been refuted many times before.

From the deposition of Sergeant Gottlieb, who in the Lacrosse Hoax distinguished himself for his dishonesty perhaps beyond any other member of the Durham Police Department:

"had a scratch on his arm consistent to the DNA that was found under the fingernail"

Exactly how can a "scratch on his arm" be "consistent to [sic] the DNA" in a way that, say, a pimple on the side of his left big toe would not be? Would noting the fact that a pimple on the side of David Evans's left big toe is "consistent" with the DNA found on (not under) the fake fingernails mean that Mangum untied the shoe and removed the sock of her alleged assailant and then scraped at a pimple on his toe?

Gottlieb is clearly trying to make it sound as if the evidence supports Mangum's claims of having scratched an attacker, but it does not. At best, it only has some points of consistency with the evidence. By analogy, the evidence of the broken cookie jar on the floor has some points of consistency with the toddler's claim that a gang of burglars broke into the kitchen and accidentally knocked the cookie jar on the floor while stealing the cookies -- but it certainly doesn't support that transparent tale.

Members of the Cult of Crystal cannot point to the DNA found in the mixture that was collected from all surfaces of the fake fingernails that had lain in David Evans' own wastebasket, and attach great importance to the fact that out of the very very very large pool of individuals who cannot be excluded as contributors to that DNA David Evans happens to be one of them -- and at the same deny the significance of the fact that the DNA testing of the rape kit items, which was sensitive enough to detect the DNA of at least five unidentified males not to mention Brian Meehan of the testing lab, did not produce a trace of DNA from any lacrosse players, let alone the three picked out of the rigged lineup. They can't have it both ways.

"If there really were a scratch, Evans' photograph would have been shown to the grand jury, and he might have been indicted earlier. Mangum's identification of Evans at 90% was contingent upon his having a moustache, which he never did".

Evans stated at his presser the team wasn't allowed to have facial hair. But on the night of the party, there are several players/party goers with facial hair and one party-goer has a somewhat full beard.

"The DNA may have come from items in the trash that had touched the fake fingernail".

That is NOT a certainty, Hadiles.

"Although Evans was not excluded, neither were roughly twenty thousand other individuals from the triangle (whose population is roughly one million)".

But twenty thousand other individuals weren't at the party or in the bathroom either. Dave Evans WAS.

To the 10:10 AM,I have looked at photos of the players on the web and in Yaeger's book. I looked especially hard for photos of Matt Zash (http://www.flickr.com/photos/52336109@N00/426754061) and David Evans I have never seen any photograph that remotely resembles what you are talking about. Give us a link or give it up. Not only was there no DNA on Crystal from RCD or any other lacrosse player, there were no fingerprints from Collin, or any other evidence consistent with her story.

"'The DNA may have come from items in the trash that had touched the fake fingernail'.

That is NOT a certainty, Hadiles [sic]."

That the DNA collected from all surfaces of the multiple fingernails could be accounted for by transfer from the other contents of the wastebasket? No, that is a certainty. That was affirmed by the very same SBI lab that collected the DNA from the fake fingernails in the first place; if you try to say that they don't know what they're talking about when they speak on the likelihood of DNA transfer, all you do is raise the question: how can they possibly be believed when they say that X% of the population cannot be ruled out as the source of the DNA and David Evans happens to be in that X%?

Collette Wright, 39, said nothing could sway her belief that Ms. Brawley told the truth 10 years ago. ''If Tawana Brawley was to get up and turn and say it was a hoax, I'd say she was lying. We know what happened to her.''

As Ms. Wright spoke before the rally, a woman monitoring the aisles walked up and cut her off. ''There are certain things people aren't allowed to talk about,'' said the woman, who refused to give her name. Others walking the aisle admonished people in the congregation who spoke to white reporters.

The Crystal-Nifong enablers know that if one repeats a lie enough times, then people are more likely to believe it. Because the authorities were not willing to deal with the lies and crimes committed by Nifong and the police, it is difficult to get any kind of closure.

Of course, there always will be the crowd that will insist that the lies are the truth, and nothing will change that. Crystal, her attorney Mark Simeon, and her family believed that their ship had come in and now find that they cannot get rich off this scheme.

By the way, if the case were so strong, why did Willie Gary disappear so quickly? He made a strong public statement early in the case, and then quickly exited, stage left. If Crystal really had been raped and all that, you can bet that Gary would have been there to collect the Big Money.

(No doubt, our enablers will claim that the families or Duke or both bought off Gary. Let me see, Wendy Murphy claimed that the families bought off Crystal -- a really neat trick, given that Crystal wanted the case to continue -- Cash tried to claim that the families tried to buy off Crystal, but failed, and so on.)

To get a sense of the dishonesty of Crystal's supporters, I turn to a column that Cash and Murphy co-wrote in USA Today. In it, they referred to a report in the Wilmington Journal that claimed the families offered Crystal $2 million.

What a neat trick! Since Cash was the author of that story, he was using his own story (but not identifying it as such) to use as "proof" that something was up. Yes, he appealed to the "authority" of the Wilmington Journal without telling the audience that he was quoting his own story.

In academic writing, such an action is known as fraud. Journalists can be a bit looser with the facts, but I think that one incident gives us a window into the tactics used by Crystal's enablers.

"N.C. residents as well as people across the nation interested in justice were very grateful for your thorough, as well as courageous, handling of the Duke Lacrosse hoax. Given the way that false accuser Crystal Mangum continues to tell audiences that she was raped, do you ever regret not charging her for her high crimes? – Debrah Correll, Chapel Hill

When my office took over this case, I promised a fresh and thorough review of the facts and a decision based on the evidence, and that’s what we did. I assigned veteran investigators and prosecutors to conduct interviews, gather evidence and review all of the allegations carefully. The result of our review and investigation showed clearly that there was insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges against the accused.

We considered whether or not to bring charges against the accuser. Our investigators and attorneys who talked with her thought that she may have actually believed the many different stories that she told. In reviewing her history, her records which were under court seal, and the history of the entire case, we decided that it was in the best interest of justice not to bring charges against her.

Do you have a point in mind? I can only guess that you are trying to imply "AG Cooper did not think that the players were innocent, only that there was 'insufficient evidence' to prove their guilt."

You could, perhaps, convince someone utterly ignorant of all AG Cooper's other statements on the matter of that argument, but I'm afraid you won't fool anyone who's examined the lacrosse case in any detail. In his April 2007 press conference, AG Cooper stated "we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges." In his Summary of Conclusions he wrote "there was no credible evidence that these crimes occurred at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in Durham that night" and "additional affirmative proof that these crimes did not occur".

Anyone trying to pretend that these strong and unambiguous statements of innocence are outweighed by someone's wishful interpretation of the wording of the AG's answer to a question asked in the newspaper is deluding themselves.

"In his April 2007 press conference, AG Cooper stated "we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges." In his Summary of Conclusions he wrote "there was no credible evidence that these crimes occurred at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in Durham that night" and "additional affirmative proof that these crimes did not occur".

The AG was pandering to special interest groups with that laughable declaration of innocence. Where has it said before? Not anywhere! It's either guilty or not guilty at trial. Roy Cooper's gave his opinion of the case. In reality, there was insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges against the accused.

"The AG was pandering to special interest groups with that ... declaration of innocence."

Do you have a single scrap of evidence to support that claim? Voices inside your head do not count as "evidence" even if you recognize them.

"It's either guilty or not guilty at trial."

Except that prosecutors make decisions about whether cases go to trial. When a criminal complaint is made but investigation of the complaint shows that the alleged offense almost certainly never occurred at all, a fair district attorney, living up to his mandate to be a minister of justice, will decline to bring that case to trial.

Nifong, of course, was interested in getting "a million dollars in free advertising", not in serving the cause of justice. When it became clear that Nifong had betrayed his duty as a prosecutor, Roy Cooper had to step in and re-do honestly the job that Nifong did corruptly -- and accordingly, he declared that they were innocent, the same state they would have been in if the case had been competently investigated and assessed fairly in the first place.

"Roy Cooper's gave his opinion of the case."

Roy Cooper, acting in his role of Attorney General for the state of North Carolina, fixing the damage done by a rogue prosecutor whose zeal to get a conviction despite the evidence was so great that he entered into a conspiracy to conceal evidence and lied to the Court about the state of the evidence, gave his binding decision that the case should go no farther because there was no reason to believe that the complaint which initiated it had ever had a lick of truth.

"In reality, there was insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges against the accused."

In reality, the case was not stopped for "insufficient evidence" but because a fair prosecutor would not have tried to manufacture a career-boosting case from the rambling and contradictory stories of a mentally ill woman in the first place.

"In reality, the case was not stopped for "insufficient evidence" but because a fair prosecutor would not have tried to manufacture a career-boosting case from the rambling and contradictory stories of a mentally ill woman in the first place".

Insufficient Evidence are words used by Roy Cooper. I am repeating what he has stated twice already.

Roy Cooper stated " we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges".

Believing is an opinion! It is not a fact.

"Cooper said that the accuser will not face prosecution in the case, saying she "may actually believe" the many different stories she told. "We believe it is in the best interest of justice not to bring charges."

Why did he say that? Because it gave him weasel room. He can't charge Ms Mangum because she has done nothing wrong but file a complaint. Ms Mangum finished college with a 3.5 GPA and earned a degree, she is an author of a book. A mentally ill person can't stay focus enough to attend classes and earn a degree. You kid no one but yourself.

"Insufficient Evidence are words used by Roy Cooper. I am repeating what he has stated twice already."

Yes, but that doesn't mean that you are being honest. In fact, you are being deliberately dishonest because you know what else Cooper has said and are ignoring it.

You harping on this issue reads like a misbehaving seven-year-old:

Kid: Momma, can I go outside?Momma: I don't want you to go outside. You are not allowed to go outside. You are to stay right here in this house. I don't want you to go outside.(Later)Momma: Why did you go outside?!Kid: Because I wanted to!Momma: And I said you were to stay right here in this house!Kid: You said "I don't want you to go outside." You said it twice! And since you didn't want me to go out but I did want to go out, I went out!

"Roy Cooper stated " we believe these three individuals are innocent of these charges".

Believing is an opinion! It is not a fact."

You clearly STILL do not understand the difference between matters of opinion and matters of fact, a difference that I daresay most of us learned in grade school. You should really remedy this gap in your knowledge.

In this case, the fact that Cooper is saying "We believe" rather than "I believe" should indicate to an educated and intelligent reader that he is speaking on behalf of the State's legal system. This is not a casual hunch that some bystander arrives at, skimming the newspaper while sipping a coffee; your attempt to represent it as such shows either ignorance or dishonesty on your part. When you read Cooper saying "we believe" you may substitute "as far as the legal system of the state of North Carolina is concerned" and you will get a better understanding of what's being said -- clearly a better understanding than you have now.

"Cooper said that the accuser will not face prosecution in the case, saying she 'may actually believe' the many different stories she told. 'We believe it is in the best interest of justice not to bring charges.'

"Why did he say that? Because it gave him weasel room. He can't charge Ms Mangum because she has done nothing wrong but file a complaint."

Mangum filed a false complaint, which is a crime and with which Cooper most certainly could have charged her. And if the only elements of the crime that needed to be proved were that Mangum made a complaint and that complaint was without factual foundation, then without question Mangum would be found guilty. The only reason why Mangum might have escaped punishment, if Cooper had chosen to charge her for the false complaint she filed, is that she has at least one thousand pages supporting an insanity defense.

"Ms Mangum finished college with a 3.5 GPA and earned a degree"

Received a degree, yes. Earned a degree? That's another question.

"she is an author of a book."

Oh, country mouse, you really don't know about ghostwriters, do you? You actually believe that every time you see the name of a famous person on the cover of a book it means that they actually did the hard work that put something on the pages in between.

"In this case, the fact that Cooper is saying "We believe" rather than "I believe" should indicate to an educated and intelligent reader that he is speaking on behalf of the State's legal system. This is not a casual hunch that some bystander arrives at, skimming the newspaper while sipping a coffee"

You're entitled to believe whatever you want. The declaration of innocence was an opinion. It was an unqualified proclamation.

Yes, Ms Mangum earned her degree with hard work and perseverance. She was determined to finish her education that was started long before that infamous party. Kudos to Crystal Gail Mangum.

Roy Cooper didn't charge Ms Mangum because she didn't commit a crime. He had no justification for doing so. But if you want to believe otherwise...whatever floats your boat.

No, I am making a comparison to dukie supporters & the whites during reconstruction....

Feeding The Wolf: John B Rayner and the Politics of Race:

"Mary Chestnut wrote, " Our men live all in one house with their wives and concubines, the mulattoes one sees in every family exactly resemble the white children------and every lady tells you who is the father of all the mulatto children in everybody's household, but those in her own she seems to think drop from the clouds, or pretends so to think".

Roy Cooper stated: There was insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges against the accused.

"The declaration of innocence was an opinion. It was an unqualified proclamation."

I cannot think of any statement made in North Carolina upon the innocence of the players which would be less an "opinion" or an "unqualified proclamation". Neither, I wager, can you: why don't you try telling us who could have declared that the players were innocent, and under what circumstances, such that you would not try to minimize it as just "opinion" and "unqualified" because it didn't match your wishful thinking.

I wouldn't be surprised if you declared that you wouldn't believe a declaration of the players' innocence even coming from Mangum herself; you may think such obstinacy proves you to be steadfast, tenacious, unswervable, but in reality it makes you a stopped clock, without the benefit of being right twice a day.

"Yes, Ms Mangum earned her degree with hard work and perseverance. She was determined to finish her education that was started long before that infamous party."

What Mangum did by lying to the police, on multiple occasions, endangering the liberty of Kim Roberts, Moezeldin Elmostafa and the entire lacrosse team, and causing a massive waste of law enforcement time and funds, was most certainly a crime. If it was merely a question of whether Mangum told stories that any sane person in her position would know to be false, the fact that she told so many contradictory stories alone proves the case.

But of course, just because a sane person in Mangum's position would have known that she was telling false stories -- would have known that she had changed her story multiple times -- doesn't mean Mangum knew. There's over a thousand pages out there detailing Mangum's mental problems, challenging any description of her as a sane person.

"No, I am making a comparison to dukie supporters & the whites during reconstruction...."

Yeah, and the little people inside your head might have understood what point you were trying to make with your comparison, but to everyone out here in the real world it was just a bizarre non-sequitur.

"Roy Cooper stated: There was insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges against the accused."

Yes, and he also stated that the best investigative capabilities of the state of North Carolina had determined that the crime never happened at all -- except within the head of a mentally ill woman. The dishonest tactic you keep using, quoting words from Cooper that sound like they support your wishful thinking, when you know quite well that they do not, is called "quote mining".

"The dishonest tactic you keep using, quoting words from Cooper that sound like they support your wishful thinking"

There is no sound like at all. Cooper clearly stated "There was insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges against the accused"."

By which he did not mean "there are reasonable grounds to think that a crime occurred but insufficient evidence to proceed on any of the charges." I know that; you know that; we all know that, because listening to his declaration of innocence at the press conference and reading his Summary of Conclusions on the case makes that clear. So when you quote Cooper's words "insufficient evidence" and deliberately withhold the context they were said in, you are engaging in the dishonest act of quote mining. But then again, your dishonesty is already displayed by the fact that you quote Cooper as an authority only for that mined quote and the rest of the time you try to pretend that what the Attorney General of North Carolina says has no significance. Can't really have it both ways.

"your dishonesty is already displayed by the fact that you quote Cooper as an authority only for that mined quote and the rest of the time you try to pretend that what the Attorney General of North Carolina says has no significance. Can't really have it both ways".

The Attorney General has no significance to declare someone innocent. Therefore, the declaration was an unqualified proclamation. I know that; you know that; we all know that!

If the victim had been another persuasion and Cooper made a declaration of innocence to the accused black men; There would have been outrage at his unqualfied proclamation. I know that; you know that; we all know that!

"The Attorney General has no significance to declare someone innocent. Therefore, the declaration was an unqualified proclamation. I know that; you know that; we all know that!"

No, what we all know is that the Attorney General had at the very minimum the same power that Michael Nifong had and which Nifong corruptly used for his own personal gain. If Nifong had acted competently and honestly he would have investigated Mangum's phony complaint, discovered that she couldn't even tell the same story each time let alone a story that the evidence supported, and would have declared that the state had no reason to believe that a crime occurred. He wouldn't have had to announce that the players were innocent; it isn't possible to be anything other than innocent of a crime which didn't occur.

If you argue that Roy Cooper didn't have the "significance" to pronounce the players innocent, it means that Nifong never had the "significance" to put them on trial in the first place.

"If the victim had been another persuasion and Cooper made a declaration of innocence to the accused black men; There would have been outrage at his unqualfied proclamation. I know that; you know that; we all know that!"

I think that a majority of people, after they got over the initial shock of realizing just how corruptly and cynically Nifong and the DPD had perpetrated a massive hoax, would be glad that innocent men were not unjustly punished because of the lies a mentally ill woman told and a corrupt police department and prosecutor conspired to perpetuate. But yes, there would probably have been a few white racists who would be furious that evidence and logic had finally won out over anti-black bigotry.

Why do I believe that this would be the case in the hypothetical scenario you suggest? Why, because it's what actually happened in the real world: a majority of people, after they got over the initial shock of realizing just how corruptly and cynically Nifong and the DPD had perpetrated a massive hoax, were glad that innocent men did not get unjustly punished because of the lies a mentally ill woman told and a corrupt police department and prosecutor conspired to perpetuate. But there are of course still a few racists who are furious that evidence and logic finally won out over anti-white bigotry.

To the 10:42 PM,Crystal said that a photograph of David Evans looked like him if he had a mustache. No one in the photos has one, especially not the guy in the blue shirt (whom someone thinks looks like Matt Zash). Also, the photos in one of the links looks as if they of a Christmas party (the red or green shirts and the Santa hat being suggestive of same), not the party of March 13, so your comment is not accurate. A Christmas party would take place before the lacrosse season began. Therefore, even if there were a rule about no facial hair, it would probably not be in force during the off-season.

There is a fundamental issue with trying to pin a rape on someone from the party with facial hair. If "mustache" and two others raped Crytal, then at least one member of the set RCD could not have. Which of the three indicted players (Reade, Collin, or Dave) do you think must therefore innocent?

"Dave Evans stated at his presser that the team wasn't allowed to have facial hair. Since the only person who claims to have evidence to the contrary has absolutely refused to produce it, despite the fact that producing it would support their case, the only logical conclusion is that Evans told the truth."

"Dave Evans stated at his presser that the team wasn't allowed to have facial hair. If he lied then, what else would he lie about?"

Upon one occasion Crystal told the police that she and Kim Roberts had been forcibly separated from each other as they were crying and trying to hold on to each other.

Upon another occasion Crystal told the police that Kim Roberts had been a willing accomplice to the alleged assault who had helped hold Crystal down.

Since both stories cannot be true then obviously Crystal lied to the police. If Crystal lied to the police about the very serious matter of rape and assault, what else would she lie about?

Or, more pertinently, is there any part she didn't lie about?

I don't think the blog owner should clear any more comments from our persistent troll until she commits herself to saying a) which of Crystal's multiple contradictory stories she believes is the true one and b) why anyone should believe that one is true when it is founded solely on the testimony of a woman who lies to the police about exactly such matters.

I have cleared some comments that were borderline in terms of attacking other posters or bloggers, or in terms of making unsubstantiated allegations. Please keep personal attacks to a minimum. PLease support what you say with verifiable facts and try to stay on topic.

To the 10:09 AM,Crystal Mangum is the focus of this post, not any minor inconsistencies (real or imagined) in the players' accounts. Therefore, I will not clear further comments on the players' stories unless those who clearly believe her can answer the questions raised by the 3:00 PM poster. Which version of events that she gave do you believe, and what is your evaluation of Ms. Mangum's credibility and why?

"In one version of the alleged assault, Crystal Gail Mangum claimed that she and Kim Roberts clung tearfully to each other, trying not to be separated, until the players finally dragged them apart and Roberts and Mangum were each assaulted individually."

Is Crystal's April 6, 2006 statement your source for this summary? Do you mean sexually assaulted? I don't recall Crystal stating Kim was assaulted. Could you please provide a source for that?

"In another version of the alleged assault, Mangum claimed that Roberts was an accomplice to the players, and helped hold Mangum down so that the players could assault her."

Is Tara Levicy the source for this summary? Could you please provide a source so I can answer your questions?

About Me

I am a biochemist who specializes in the chemical modification of proteins and the synthesis of potential enzyme inhibitors. I am particularly interested in the chemistry of phosphorus and sulfur as it can be applied to biochemical problems.